The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Case

By Latrelle Easterling, December 2003

Presentation of the Case

Terri Schindler-Schiavo has spent 13 years in a coma,
attached to feeding tubes and unable to communicate. On February 25, 1990,
Terri Schiavo collapsed in her home. While the actual circumstances that
led to her collapse are speculative, doctors believe a potassium imbalance
caused her heart to stop, temporarily cutting off oxygen to her brain
(Associated Press April 30, 2001). Terri fell into a coma and was
hospitalized and ultimately placed on a feeding tube to provide hydration
and nutrition. According to the doctors attending to Terri in 2001, death
would occur within one to two weeks of removal of the equipment that is
providing food and hydration to her (St. Petersburg Times, 7 March 2001,
sec. 3B).

After a prolonged hospitalization, Michael Schiavo,
Terri’s husband, filed a petition to have the feeding tube removed in
May of 1998. Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri’s parents, then filed suit to
have Michael Schiavo removed as Terri’s guardian ad litem, and to
prevent the feeding tube from being removed. Significant legal battles
ensued that raised issues concerning whether Terri would ever recover, who
has the right to speak on her behalf, whether treatment can be suspended,
and what constitutes treatment. A lower court judge ordered on February
11, 2000 that the feeding tube may be removed. Both the Florida Supreme
Court and the United States Supreme Court refuse to intervene, allowing
the lower court ruling to stand. However, On April 26, 2001, Circuit Judge
Frank Quesada orders doctors to reinsert Terri’s feeding tube after her
parents filed motions alleging that false testimony was offered at the
lower court hearing. During a hearing beginning October 17, 2001, five
doctors offer testimony concerning whether Terri Schiavo will ever recover
(Associate Press 17 Nov. 2003).

Five doctors examined Terri to assess her condition,
and her chances for recovery. Two doctors argue that she can recover while
the remaining three testify there is no hope of recovery. On November 22,
2002, Judge Greer rules that there is no evidence that Terri has any hope
of recovery and orders her feeding tube may be removed. On June 6, 2003,
the 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds the lower court ruling
allowing for the feeding tube to be removed. On October 15, 2003, the
feeding tube is removed. On October 21, 2003, the Florida legislature
passed a feeding tube bill allowing the tube to be reinserted. (Associated
Press 17 Nov. 2003).

Michael Schiavo believes that his wife is being made
to suffer, and that her present status has robbed her of any remaining
dignity. Terri’s parents believe that their daughter has been denied the
opportunity to recover, and that with treatment she can enjoy a reasonable
quality of life. The legal battle continues today with doctors disagreeing
about Terri’s medical status, prospects for recovery and appropriate
interventions. In the meantime, Terri remains attached to a feeding tube,
spending her life in a medical institution totally incapacitated and
unable to participate in the decisions concerning her very life.

Framing the Issue

This emotionally charged case has strained the limits
of medical, legal and moral reasoning. The facts of the case raise crucial
questions concerning human life, its purpose, ends and moral
responsibilities. It also highlights the tension that medical
technological advances have created between the health care community and
faith communities. While science and religion have not always been
dialogical partners, the need for the two to engage in meaningful
discourse is epitomized in our modern technology-driven society.
Regardless of our opinions concerning religion or science independently,
the two have irreversibly intersected and must be engaged. For those
traveling the highways of science and the long road of illness or death
and dying, this intersection too often leads to a catastrophic collision
rather than ordered navigation. There must be a roadmap that guides
individuals through these hazardous intersections. Otherwise, far too many
people travel in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance, unable to
interpret the road signs to reconcile their religious beliefs with
scientific and medical technological realities.

This paper will use the aforementioned case to
examine our society’s battle with death, the means employed to stave off
death and their ethical and moral implications. I will also examine the
issue of authority within the created being and who ultimately has
authority with respect to the culmination of a human life. Finally, I will
juxtapose these issues with the Christological concepts of life, death and
suffering.

A Matter of Life and Death

“Death always has been and always
will be with us. It is an integral part of human existence. And, because
it is, it has always been a subject of deep concern to all of us. Since
the dawn of humankind, the human mind has pondered death, searching for
the answer to its mysteries. For the key to the question of death unlocks
the door of life” Elisabeth Kübler -Ross

Not
much has changed since these words were published in 1975. The word death
still evokes emotions and fears in most individuals. It remains one of the
few topics that elicit trepidation. For many the thought of leaving the
temporal realm of life was we know it is unbearable. Death appears to many
to be like a waterfall at the end of a flowing, glorious river. The
destination is unknown and therefore predictably causes anxiety and
foreboding. It is evident from our society’s fascination with staving
off aging and its affects on the body that we cherish, almost worship
life, and will go to extreme lengths to preserve it.

With
the advent of technological medical developments, it has become much
easier to prevent death and prolong life. These developments have been
both a blessing and a curse. Few would argue that medical achievements
such as the pacemaker, artificial heart, transplantations or cancer
treatments are regrettable. Rather, they have provided treatments for
otherwise debilitating or heretofore-terminal diseases or conditions.
Those who receive such treatments often go on to live energetic, engaging
lives. However, there are more controversial treatments that have brought
with them arguments concerning whether they prolong life or simply
elongate death . The ventilator, respiration or gastronomic feeding tube
present more complicated dynamics and have muddied the waters of modern
medicine. There is now a struggle between medicines intention to heal and
life’s intention to eventually end. This tension between medicine and
science also raises theological issues.

Renowned
theologian Karl Barth stated, “God and God alone should make an end of
human life” (Barth 1961, p. 404). Barth also reasoned that life was
given to humanity “as an inalienable loan” (Barth 1961, p. 425). The
terminology espoused by Barth, “gift” and “loan,” suggest that we
are created out of love, and that although we are the embodiment of the
giver’s gift, ultimately the gift is not ours to keep. In the end the
gift must be returned to the lien holder. Therefore, if we do not own
these lives it also flows that we do not have absolute control over them.
Rather, we are stewards tasked with making something of these lives and
caring for them in appreciation of the gift, but in anticipation of their
ultimate return. Our stewardship should include an understanding of how
the Creator would expect our lives to be maintained.

This
ontological schema highlights the tensions present at our intersection. In
light of Barth’s argument, how do we discern the will of God and good
stewardship in the advent of medicine’s achievements? Are we to assume
that if the mind of man can perceive and achieve it, that it is the will
of God? Or has man stept out of his place and into the realm of the
divine, building a medical tower of Babel? With respect to the Schiavo
case, are the doctor’s playing God by continuing to sustain Terri’s
life? If in fact she would die without the feeding tubes, is she in fact
living or just experiencing a prolonged period of dying?

There
are moral philosophers, such as Joseph Fletcher, who argue that not using
every available means to sustain life is fatalistic and morally bankrupt.
He postulates that medical and technological advances are the natural
progression of a society created by God to achieve good, and to sustain
life. Fletcher, who supports stewardship as well as dominion over nature,
argues, “…humans have the right to use their intelligence in
controlling physical nature rather than submitting to its ‘beastlike’
workings” (Talone 1996, p. 28).

In
the case of Karen Ann Quinlan, perhaps the most famous case involving
medical technology and end of life decisions, the attorney’s who argued
that her parents should not be allowed to remove her from the respirator
based their arguments on the theory that her parents only wanted to remove
her from this life-sustaining machine because they could not bear to see
her in pain. They argued that pain is an inevitable part of life, and must
be endured both in birth and in death (Colen 1976, p. 50). However, Colen
turned this argument on its head by espousing that their reasoning was in
fact the most compelling rationale for ending this “medical
molestation” of Karen’s body. He retorted that their legal
machinations were,

…nothing
less than a Calvinist admonition to leave to God those decisions which
are God’s, to recognize that there are, indeed, ‘episodes of pain
and anguish and sorrow and grief in this life’ that neither ‘the law
or any legal system’ – nor our men-made gods, physicians-can cure.
We can do just so much to ease our way through this vale of tears. We
must recognize our human limitations and cease our over reaching. For
there comes a time when we as men must say: ‘Enough; there is nothing
more that we can do. This situation is beyond human control’ (Colen
1976, p. 51).

Colen
also articulates what few others are willing to admit. The decision to end
life support is arguably not the first time that we engage in “playing
God.” Rather, he argues that when the decision is made to use a
respirator for exploratory surgery to determine whether life is still
viable for example, that is also a decision tantamount to “playing
God” (Colen 1976, p. 48). The latter decision is far more palatable
because it sustains life, it prolongs our temporal existence and staves
off death. The former decision offends our death-denying culture because
it arguably robs us of the very thing we seem insistent on preserving at
all cost.

The
care of the terminally ill in the Untied States has changed as the
business of dying has shifted from the moral to the technical order. The
moral order has been used to describe those bonds between men based in
sentiment, morality, or conscience, that describe what is right. The
technical order rests on the usefulness of things, based in necessity or
expediency, and not founded in conceptions of the right. The change of
death from a moral to a technical matter has come about for many reasons
based in social evolutions and technical advance, and the effects on the
dying have been profound (Hastings Center Report 1975, p. 43).

The
moral order analyzes facts and circumstances always keeping in mind that
humanity is involved. It addresses human relationship, societal order and
the pursuit of the highest good in relation to created being. The
technical order deals with machines and their utilitarian value. While the
technical order can serve to assist the moral order, it should not become
the dominant cosmological view over against the moral order.

Cassell
goes to on to state that with the dawn of this shift from a moral to a
technical order, the focus of life has also changed. Rather than talking
about “life expectancy,” the focus of this death defying culture has
become our “death expectancy” (Hastings Center Report 1975, p. 43).
And the growing expectation is that it should never come.

Understanding the Road
Signs: Definitions

God
grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference. Serenity Prayer

Much
of the controversy surrounding the issue of technology and medical care
concerns the terminology employed, the attendant definitions and the moral
implications of how those definitions are applied to the particular case.
Concerning the case in point, Terri Schiavo has been deemed by several
physicians to be in a “persistent vegetative state”. However, a
different set of doctors have testified that she is not in such a state,
and that her condition, with the proper therapy and care, can be improved.
Much of the controversy concerning whether the medical technology deemed
to be keeping her alive should be removed revolves around these diagnoses
and definitions. There are at least two ways of interpreting this set of
facts. On the one hand, if you believe that Terri is in a persistent,
vegetative state with no hope of recovery, then efforts to keep her
“alive” can be categorized as medical treatment. On the other hand, if
you hold to the belief that Terri can recover from her condition, then the
efforts to sustain her existence can be categorized as life affirming, and
the duty that we owe to every human being.

There
cannot be a reasoned, rational discussion without an understanding of the
terminology employed in that communicative act. As articulated in the
Episcopal Report, “It is vital to give … “euthanasia” as precise a
meaning as we can, for clear definitions are essential to moral
discourse” (Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia 1997, p. 11). If you were to
consult Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary for a definition
of euthanasia you would find the following entry:

1.
Also called mercy killing, the act of putting to death painlessly a
person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition. 2.
Painless death (Webster’s 1992).

This
entry also indicates that euthanasia’s etymological origins in Greek
meant “an easy death” (Webster’s 1992). The American Medical
Association defines euthanasia as “The administration of a lethal agent
by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving the
patient’s intolerable and incurable suffering” (American Medical
Association Prof. Ethics – E-2.21). According to a committee on medical
ethics of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington euthanasia means, “one
person intentionally causes the death of another who is terminally or
seriously ill, often to end the latter’s pain and suffering. Euthanasia
requires the explicit intention to end another’s life” (Assisted
Suicide and Euthanasia 1997, p. 12). The Catholic Church defines
euthanasia as,

An
action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in
order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. Euthanasia’s
terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the
will and in the method’s used (Bioethics 1999, p. 204).

While
these definitions vary in tone, action and intentionality, they all concur
that this act is usually done to relieve the suffering of the subject. The
issue of suffering is central to a consideration of these issues, and will
be addressed later in this project.

In
the case of Terri Schiavo, the debate is not whether to inject her with a
lethal dose of poison, rather the controversy surrounds whether the tubes,
which provide hydration and nutrition, can be removed. Under the American
Medical Association’s definition of euthanasia, the removal of the
feeding tubes would not necessarily constitute euthanasia. Conversely,
under the Catholic Church’s definition, the very act of withdrawing the
feeding tube would be seen as causing her death, and would be considered
an act of euthanasia. Also, under the Catholic understanding of this
medical and technological quandary, the omission of food and water would
be tantamount to euthanasia. It is important to note that Terri was raised
Catholic, and her parents identify themselves as Catholic.

In
the Schiavo case, should withdrawal of the feeding tube constitute
euthanasia? Does the intention of the individual making the decision
inform the debate? The Committee on Medical Ethics of the Episcopal
Diocese of Washington draws a clear distinction between the intention to
end life, and the intention to suspend ineffective or non-productive
treatment. The Committee states,

The
withholding or withdrawal of treatment that is deemed useless or
burdensome, however, need not involve a specific intent to cause death.
Doctors realize that patients may die when treatment is removed, but the
fact that they would not act to kill patients should they not die after
treatment removal indicates that they do not intend to cause death
(Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia 1997, p. 13).

However,
the Catholic Church holds a very different opinion, regardless of
intention. Responding to the removal of Terri’s feeding tube the
Catholic Media Coalition stated,

The
euthanasia murder of Terri Schindler Schiavo by starvation and
dehydration which began yesterday at 2:00 p.m. is a violation of her
right to life and a crime against humanity… The Catholic Church, of
which Terri is a member, teaches that food and water are ordinary means
of life and may never be removed unless an individual is imminently
dying (within a few hours or days) or cannot receive benefit from them
(Catholic Media Coalition 10 Dec. 2003).

The
Coalition goes on to articulate that Pope John Paul II addressed the issue
of withdrawing the administration of food and nutrition in medical cases
on October 2, 1998. They quote him as saying that a similar case,

Rightly
emphasizes that the omission of nutrition and hydration intended to
cause a patient’s death must be rejected, and that while giving
careful consideration to all the factors involved, the presumption
should be in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and
hydration to all patients who need them (Pope John Paul II in Catholic
Media Coalition, 10 Dec. 2003).

Is
the Orthodox Catholic view on this subject the only feasible
Christological view? Extreme arguments are rarely supported by reasoned,
informed analysis of all considerations. It can be argued that the
Catholic argument raises life to idolatrous levels. If the ultimate hope
of the Christian is to see God “face to face,” then death should not
be cursed as evil. This is not to support arguments that attempt to cast
Paul as a supporter of suicide. However, there must be a rational point at
which medical interventions are without merit, and allowing the process of
death to occur is the higher good, for both the individual and the created
order.

Richard
A. McCormick, a Catholic theologian and ethicist, wrestles with the deep,
abiding issues concerning the respect of life and death within a Christian
context. He surmises that, “At some point continuance in physical life
offers the person no benefit. Indeed, to keep ‘life’ going can easily
be an assault on the person and his or her dignity (Talone 1996, p. 25).
McCormick is said to be addressing the notion of “biologism,” which in
this work is defined as, “see[ing] life only in terms of physical life
and does not recognize the spiritual and eternal character of the person
which is a constitutive part of the Christian tradition (Talone 1996, P.
25). Other Catholics as well argue that sustaining life, even through
artificial feeding, is at times contrary to rational thought. Talone
highlights the conclusion of the National Council of Catholic Bishops with
respect to this issue. In their Directives for end-of-life care they
state,

There
should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to
all patients, including patients who require medically assisted
nutrition and hydration as long as this is of sufficient benefit to
outweigh the burdens involved to the patient (Talone 1996, p. 24).

Talone
goes on to talk about a cost-benefit analysis that is beyond the scope of
this project, but is part of the ethical consideration that should be
employed in these difficult cases.

The
United Methodist Church recognizes this cost-benefit analysis in its
understanding of end-of-life care. The Social Principles of the
denomination clearly delineate an appreciation of the sanctity of human
life, but they also recognize that all created being reaches a point of
inviability. The Social Principles state,

All
human life is the gift of God. Distinct from other creatures, we are
created male and female in God’s image with intellect and free will.
Thus endowed with the capacities for knowledge, freedom, responsibility,
and personal relationship, we are called in community to realize the
divine purpose of living, which is to love God and one another. As
Christians we believe that God affirms the value of all human life
through the incarnation of Jesus Christ and through the empowering
presence of the Holy Spirit (Social Principles 1996, p. 139).

However,
the Social Principles also recognize limitations of life in this temporal
realm.

Life
is given to us in trust: not that we “might be as gods” in absolute
autonomy, but that we might exercise stewardship over life while seeking
the purposes for which God made us. In this life we are called by God to
develop and use the arts, sciences, technologies, and other resources
within ethical limits defined by respect for human dignity, the creation
of community, and the realization of love….When a person’s suffering
is unbearable and irreversible or when the burdens of living outweigh
the benefits for a person suffering from a terminal or fatal illness,
the cessation of life may be considered a relative good. Christian
theological and ethical reflection shows that the obligations to use
life-sustaining treatments cease when the physical, emotional,
financial, or social burdens exceed the benefits for the dying patient
and the caregivers (Social Principles 1996, p. 140).

While
her parents, as well as doctors they have privately secured, argue that
she can recover, it appears from the prolonged vegetative state highly
unlikely. Michael Schiavo, and the doctors he has secured, argues that
there is no meaningful hope of recovery for Terri. The doctor hired by the
court to make an independent evaluation concurred with the doctor’s
denying any chance for meaningful recovery. While the medical prognosis of
the patient in this instance is in question, when the life of the patient
no longer bears the marks of viability, there are moral and ethical
arguments that support terminating all treatment. The criteria should be
an objective analysis of what benefit this life sustaining, or perhaps
death-prolonging treatment is achieving. Does Terri derive any benefit
form continued attachment to a feeding tube serve? This should control the
final analysis for all such unenviable circumstances.

A Christological View of
Suffering and Death

For
the imperishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal
with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the
imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is
written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
“Where, O death is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” 1 CO
15: 53-55.

I
am fully cognizant of the fact that 1 Corinthian 15: 55 addresses the
death of death, and the victory of eternal life in Christ Jesus. However,
I am admittedly employing artistic license in appropriating that metaphor
as a call to remember that death should also give us pause to evaluate our
living, as well as our dying, in light of the victory eternal life.
Perhaps in our life-worshipping culture, the ultimate sting of death
should be our inability to continue living, and thereby our inability to
“get it right” after we die. Perhaps there should be a little sting
left in our dying.

Many
in the Christian tradition hold that Jesus Christ provides a model for
holy living and holy dying. Theologians often articulate the belief that
Christ is the premiere “image and likeness of God” (Gunton 1992, p.
100). Those who support this theory postulate that,

First,
Jesus represents God to the creation in the way that the first human
beings were called, but failed to do; and second that he enables other
human beings to achieve the directedness to God of which their
fallenness has deprived them. …a large part of Jesus’ ministry was
concerned with the redemption into obedience to God of the fallen
created order. As such, his activity was the exercise of the true image
and likeness of God (Gunton 1992, p. 100).

While
many scientists may argue that these religious considerations bear no
direct weight on the technological questions at hand, theologians would
argue that the failure to include theology in the debate is idolatrous.
Martin Blocher questions the exclusion of God from the analysis when he
states,

Modern
science has largely succeeded in eliminating God as even part of the
equation for many people, despite recent claims that medical schools
will now physicians how to integrate spirituality with physical care.
Nor does modern medicine exhibit a supernatural orientation in its
pursuit of truth. For the most part, modern science surrounds itself
with theories and methodologies that reflect a this-world-only
perspective, and if one is to maintain any hope for further career
advancement in science, he or she had better maintain that
perspective…. Faith in divine revelation is seen as the opposite of
reason (Blocher 1999, p. 44).

In
light of this tenet, the life of Jesus holds important meaning for those
who claim Christianity as their faith base. Perhaps there is wisdom to be
gleaned from the life of Jesus in his final hours – the hours of his
dying. During the final hours of the Passion Narrative, Jesus is about to
enter into the darkest hour of his life. He is faced with the ultimate
reality that the trajectory of his life has led him to the cross and
crucifixion, the most humiliating death an individual can endure. After
being led to the place where he is to be crucified, and just before he is
nailed to the cross, Jesus’ captors offer him wine mixed with gall
(Gospel of Matthew 27:34). However, Jesus refuses to drink from that
bitter cup because he has chosen to drink from another bitter cup, the cup
of salvation. After the hours of crucifixion have passed and Jesus nears
the point of death, he is offered once again a mixture of wine. This time
Jesus receives the sponge to his lips. Soon after receiving the sponge,
Jesus “gives up the ghost” (Gospel of John 19:30).

It
can be argued that Jesus refused to accept the first drink because it
would have anesthetized him from his impending suffering, and lessened his
conscious awareness of his sacrificial act. Jesus would not have been able
to fully participate in his crucifixion (New Interpreter’s Bible
Commentary 1995, vol. 8, p. 491). Although Jesus knew his impending ordeal
would cause immense suffering and pain, he chose to endure it in
submission to his Creator, and to fulfill his life’s purpose. It can
further be argued that once that purpose was fulfilled, he allowed his
suffering to be eased as he drank from the mixture of wine. At the point
when Jesus knew his purpose in life had been fulfilled, he ceased to hold
onto life in this temporal realm, but rather placed his life-spirit in the
hands of his Creator (New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary 1995, vol. 9,
p. 832).

What
implications does this end-of-life dramatization have on a follower of
Christ? It may in fact provide navigational tools for journeying toward
our ultimate destiny. If Jesus’ life had purpose and meaning beyond his
creating, and the fulfillment of that purpose was greater than his desire,
comfort or will, our life holds commensurate characteristics. We, like
Jesus, were each birthed into this cosmological order with a purpose, a
divine purpose that transcends our temporal existence, desire or will. It
is then our responsibility to live our lives toward a fulfillment of that
purpose.

Pius
XII addressed the issue of suffering and our call to approach the subject
with intentional witness to our faith. When asked whether pain suppression
was ever ethical within the Judeo-Christian tradition, Pius XII responded,
“If no other means exists, and if, in the given circumstances, this does
not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties: Yes”
(Pius XII in Bioethics 1999, p. 205). This interpretation of the Christian
responsibility during suffering is commensurate with the events of
Jesus’ dying on the cross. Jesus refrained form the initial offer of a
narcotic because his life’s purpose had not been fulfilled. The salvific
act for which he had been born had not been consummated. However, after
the work of the cross had been completed, Jesus took the drink from the
sponge.

Therefore,
it is a valid view within the Christological model to lessen pain and
suffering at the end of life. However, one should not extend this reasoned
analysis beyond the bounds of applicability. A deep chasm exists between
easing pain and ending it altogether through artificial means. To infer a
prescription for euthanasia within this framework may be to broaden the
analysis too broadly.

However,
painkillers that cause unconsciousness need special consideration. For a
person not only has to be able to satisfy his or her moral duties and
family obligations; he or she also has to prepare himself or herself will
full consciousness for meeting Christ. Thus Pius XII warns, ‘It is not
right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious
reason’ (Bioethics 1999, p. 205).

The
determination of whether one has either fulfilled their purposeful work in
this temporal existence, or “met Christ,” is a highly subjective and
personal matter. It cannot and should not be assumed or imposed on an
individual. It is imperative that each individual be given an opportunity
to work out his or her own soul salvation. This is why pastoral care and
work with the dying is so critical. The individual should be given every
opportunity to work through any questions of unfinished business, either
secular or religious, for themselves.

Conclusion

At
the beginning of this reflection I articulated that the superhighway of
science and the boulevard of religion have intersected, and the
trajectories cannot be reversed. While much has been gained from the
achievements of medical science, our society is harmed when we lean too
far on the technological side of life, and thereby neglect or deny our
moral selves. While I am not arguing for a return “to the good old
days,” (as if they were all that great), rather I am stating that a
balancing of the two paths is required for ordered navigation. I resonate
with the approach offered by Eric J. Cassell in his article, “Dying in a
Technological Society,” where he states,

Even
if it were possible, the solution is not a return of American society to
technical innocence. I do not believe that men were inherently more
moral in the past when the moral order predominated over the technical.
The path seems to lie in the direction of a more systematic
understanding of the moral order to restore its balance with the
technical. Understanding the body has not made it less wonderful, and
the systematic exploration of the moral nature of man will not destroy
that nature but rather increase its influence. In the case of the dying,
it may give back to the living the meaning of death (Hastings Center
Report 1975, p. 48).

In
attempting to avoid death and refusing to see it as the natural
culmination of all life, we live in a state of denial, we rob “death of
its meaning.” That denial causes us to refrain from engaging in perhaps
the most compelling truth of death, that it is the defining moment of
life. Perhaps this is the sting of death that we are attempting to
anesthetize by worshiping and prolonging life. Perhaps an antidote to our
technology-driven society can be to use the life and death of Jesus as our
Global Positioning Satellite. By using his life as our ultimate
navigational tool, the people of the Christian faith can remain steady as
we journey this course.

Once
death as occurred, in the Judeo-Christian sense, there is no opportunity
to right wrongs or make amends for sins or offenses. The life stands as a
testament, a finished volume of the individual who embodied that life.
This stark reality should cause us to live life with enthusiasm and in
earnest, but it should also encourage us to live to the highest moral
good. To, in the words of John Wesley, “Do all of the good that you can,
in all of the places that you can, in all of the ways that you can, for
all of the people that you can, for as long as you can.” Yet, if we are
unwilling to except the reality of death, if we vest all of our time,
resources, energy and hope in the destruction of death, we run the risk of
not running out of time to live to our highest good. Perhaps this is the
most undignified life, a life that ignored the sting and unchangeable
reality of death.